In my opinion they got off light what they did to those students is worse than robbing a store!
Category Civil Society
Intellectual tyranny–Thomas Sowell discusses
Sowell is almost always right on but Milloy make a good point about the current situation and the funding. In a perfect world the Scientists would police themselves but the lure of money has destroyed science as it once was. The people living in the country now only what free things and the intellectuals are no better wanting grant money to enhance their status. The politicians wanting power give both groups what they desire and there is only one way this can end! Lets hope there is a rebirth of freedom sometime not to distant from now.
Here at junkscience.com it’s a damn lucky thing we aren’t offerred a lot of money to change our opinions.
View original post 193 more words
Sharpton Calls for “National Policing”
Posted By Roger Aronoff On April 9, 2015 @ 10:13 am
Al Sharpton, President Obama’s “go-to man on race” as described [1] by Politico last year, is at it again. After riling up the nation over false narratives about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Sharpton has found a case he can get behind where there appears to be little doubt this time that a white policeman, Michael Slager, brutally and unnecessarily shot to death an unarmed black man in South Carolina.
But in our justice system, even that cop deserves his day in court. After all, we were reminded of that right when on Wednesday, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found guilty on 30 counts for his role in the Islamic terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon that resulted in four deaths.
Within hours of the release of the cell phone video of Walter Scott being shot dead in North Charleston, South Carolina, Sharpton announced [2] that “It’s time for this country to have national policing,” adding “We can’t go from state to state, we’ve got to have national law to protect people against these continued questions.” Never mind that the cop in question was quickly charged with murder, fired from his job, and is being held in jail without bail. Once again, it appears that Sharpton draws the wrong lessons from such tragedies. No peace, no justice? Or is this what justice should look like? Sharpton announced yesterday that his organization, National Action Network, would stand with Scott’s family.
Jack Cashill, an outstanding journalist, recalls [3] in his latest article just how those false narratives, including the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, take hold. Cashill cites the case of Rolling Stone’s false, and now retracted, story of a gang-rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. He makes the point that “all right thinking people were of one mind…on the shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, a collective misreporting far more consequential than that of the Rolling Stone rape story.”
The mainstream media often treat MSNBC’s Sharpton like royalty, promoting his left-wing agendas while carefully avoiding mention of his conflicts of interest and continuing corruption. The Washington Post recently published a piece that serves as an ideal example of such biased coverage.
The piece, “Sharpton to lead advocacy campaign in advance of 2016 election [4],” written by Wesley Lowery, acts as a press release for Sharpton’s National Action Network’s radical civil rights agenda. Lowery described this agenda as promoting Loretta Lynch’s nomination to replace Eric Holder as attorney general, and “opposing state-level religious objections bills, seen as discriminatory against gays and lesbians, and pressing Congress to advance reforms of the criminal justice system.”
Accuracy in Media has extensively outlined how the mainstream media have worked first to stoke racial tension in places like Ferguson, Missouri and then called for criminal justice reform throughout the country, with Sharpton as one of the more vocal media mouthpieces [5].
“Although he is a lightning rod despised by many police groups, especially the New York Police Department, Sharpton is vowing to take a more considerate line,” reported Lowery.
“We demonstrate that we are serious when we say, ‘Let’s take the name-calling down,’ and when we’re willing to hear from everybody as long as they are serious in substance,” said Sharpton, according to Lowery. “We don’t need a season more of screaming. We need some real policy.”
Sharpton has a show, “PoliticsNation,” on MSNBC on weeknights. According to accusations [6] in a $20 billion racial discrimination lawsuit, and public comments by Byron Allen, a black TV executive, Sharpton has his show on MSNBC “Because he endorsed Comcast’s acquisition of NBCUniversal.” Could that have been a factor in NBC getting the first interview [7] with the gentleman who took the video of the shooting in North Charleston?
Sharpton’s MSNBC show wasn’t even mentioned by Lowery. Neither was his failure to pay back taxes [8], nor allegations of pay for play [9], nor that Sharpton was found liable for defamation [10] in the Tawana Brawley case. And with Sharpton’s latest call for “national policing,” once again, Sharpton isn’t getting the media scrutiny he deserves.
Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org
URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/sharpton-calls-for-national-policing/
URLs in this post:
[1] described: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/al-sharpton-obama-race-110249.html#.VSYm8fnF8eO
[2] announced: http://observer.com/2015/04/al-sharpton-calls-for-fedeal-police-laws-after-south-carolina-killing/
[3] recalls: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/what_columbia_missed_in_its_review_of_emrolling_stoneem.html
[4] Sharpton to lead advocacy campaign in advance of 2016 election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/04/07/ba2ab96a-dd56-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html
[5] one of the more vocal media mouthpieces: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/msnbcs-conflict-of-interest-al-sharpton/
[6] accusations: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/black_media_exec_exposes_the_deal_that_got_sharpton_his_show_on_msnbc.html
[7] NBC getting the first interview: http://www.thewrap.com/lester-holt-lands-first-interview-with-man-who-taped-south-carolina-police-killing-video/
[8] failure to pay back taxes: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/30/exclusive-al-sharpton-and-newt-gingrich-owe-the-irs-a-lot-of-money.html
[9] pay for play: http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/how-sharpton-gets-paid-to-not-cry-racism-at-corporations/
[10] found liable for defamation: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/14/nyregion/the-brawley-ruling-the-overview-sharpton-liable-for-defamation-in-brawley-case.html
BREAKING: Walter Scott Vehicle Passenger Identified: Pierre Fulton (30)
With this information it is getting to look more like all the other one that have happened over the years but not what the left will want!
Love in the new world, after the gender wars
Summary: It’s vital to understand not just what’s happening in the gender wars but why. Here Allan Bloom explains the beliefs and goals of the social reformers leading the restructuring of American society. They’re quite frank in writings amongst themselves, but speak to the rest of us in more gentler and comforting terms. {2nd of 2 posts today.}
Excerpt from Allan Bloom’s Love and Friendship
(1993):
“The Fall of Eros”
The new program to reform society
Now there is a new illiberal tendency that strangely both contradicts and supports liberal tolerance and easygoingness: the imperial project of reform promoted by radical feminism. It wants to enter the bedroom and much more the psyche in order to alter male sexual taste and behavior. It is not so much acts but the meaning of those acts and the disposition of those who perform them that now count.
The new discussion of male…
View original post 1,540 more words
*Update* Game Changer OR Paradigm Shift ? – Walter Scott Shooting: Enhanced Video Shows Officer Slager With Taser Darts…
Things are never what they seem …
The Burdens of Thought Policing

It is not easy being a contemporary thought policeman.
No sooner had the radical gay Left demonized the owners of an Indiana pizza parlor, which does not cater weddings, for suggesting that in theory they might not wish to cater a gay wedding than all sorts of stories surfaced saying that lots of Muslim eateries professed that they too would not cater gay weddings. What can the thought bullies do if one victim should victimize another?
Money complicates thought policing as well. The CEO of Apple is outraged at the thought crimes of Indiana pizza-parlor owners who offer his trillion-dollar company no chance of lucre — but he is not outraged at the concretely homophobic culture of the Middle East or the religious intolerance of China, which are hooked on i-products. Are theoretical sins worse than actual ones?
We are back in spirit to the scripted outrage of a few years ago at Mormons in California for supposedly voting down gay marriage on a ballot proposition — until exit polls suggested that the state’s black voters had proved as much opposed to gay marriage as the so-called Religious Right. Figuring out who is and who is not an enemy of the people, and so subject to banishment to the PC gulag, is as difficult as it was for the Stalinists in the 1930s to hound out the last Russian counterrevolutionaries.
In the George Zimmerman case, we have to give the thought police of the New York Times and NBC News some credit for matching the untiring zealousness of Inspector Javert. The Timesinvented a new rubric, “white Hispanic,” to preempt any competing Zimmerman claim on ethnic victimhood. NBC doctored a 911 tape to make Zimmerman sound like a foul racist. Other news outlets tried to Photoshop away police images that had shown a bleeding Zimmerman after the fight; in contrast, Trayvon Martin, who by the time of the confrontation was a tall teenager, was often seen in photos as a cuddly preteen in his football uniform. But finally even the thought police could not stop a supposedly poor, honest woman of color who was a witness for the defense, Rachel Jeantel, from testifying as an unapologetic racist (“creepy-ass white cracker”) and homophobe who seemed to confirm the defense’s argument that Martin started the fight (“whoop ass”).
In the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Mo., a nearly-300-pound thug — who had just strong-armed a liquor store, walked down the middle of the road under the influence, and rushed and attacked a policeman — had to be transmogrified by the thought police into a “gentle giant.” When Big Brother got through with Brown, he had been gunned down in cold blood by a racist cop after pleading for his life with a final “hands up, don’t shoot.” The makeover almost worked — if it were not for a few honest eyewitnesses and the laws of ballistics and criminal forensics. Note one constant “true lies” theme of thought policing, whether in Ferguson or in the recent Rolling Stone rape-allegations caper: When exposed, falsifiers never apologize to their real victims, whether the smeared Officer Darren Wilson or the University of Virginia fraternity members. Instead, we are subjected to ends-justifying-the means throat clearing and worries that the lies may prevent discussion of real racism or actual rapes — as if the untruth at least served some social good by raising our awareness.
To believe the media’s acceptance of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail yarns, we would have to engage in mental gymnastics that would make Rose Mary Woods’s physical contortions during Watergate seem a trifle in comparison. Hillary sort of had four mobile devices, but also sort of had only one. Everyone knows you need two separate smartphones to have two separate e-mail accounts, and thus she had only one of each. She protected her server from hackers by having bodyguards on the premises — but not from her more dangerous alter ego, who deleted thousands of e-mails and crashed her server. She wanted a private account to e-mail her husband – and, as proof, Bill Clinton said he had written only two e-mails in his entire life. She swears that she knew which e-mails were private and which were public, and so understandably destroyed the former to prove just that to the American people. What Hillary Clinton did was not at all unusual, although no other high-ranking administration official communicated only through a private e-mail account and server. Listening to her gibberish was like an exasperated Dorothy watching the stammering Oz as the tiny man behind the curtain frantically twisted dials and pulled levers to let out steam and project a defiant, though empty, talking head.
The Obama administration has prompted a new use for the old adverb “unexpectedly,” which has been repeatedly used by the media to characterize dismal current statistics on economic growth and employment. “Unexpectedly” now means that massaged federal statistics and media spin are still not enough to hide the fact that something that inevitably should have happened actually has happened. Jaw-boning down business, hiking taxes, creating the Obamacare mess, expanding entitlements and regulations, running up $1 trillion deficits on the way to an $18 trillion national debt — all that and more “unexpectedly” led to more dismal economic news on flat employment and stagnant economic growth.
Do we remember how the thought police cited the unexpected Japanese tsunami, the unexpected Washington earthquake, the unexpected Arab Spring, unexpected online ticketing, unexpected ATM machines, an unexpected BP oil slick, unexpected Hurricane Irene, and unexpectedly soft Americans (cf. Barack Obama’s pronouncement: “The way I think about it is, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades”), which all unexpectedly combined to cause a sluggish economy?
The Iran nuclear deal poses the greatest challenge to thought policing — largely because of the simple fact that if the theocracy, as it professes, did not wish to enrich uranium to get a bomb, there would never have been any enriched uranium there in the first place, and therefore no need for talks with an already energy-rich Iran.
President Obama and his administration had in the past warned us that we must not do what they just did. Suddenly Iran can keep the subterranean Fordow enrichment site. The Arak plutonium facility is now apparently okay too. Thousands of centrifuges can keep spinning. Enriched uranium does not have to be sent to Russia for inspection. Sanctions can be lifted before full compliance. Ballistic-missile development is a separate issue.
John Kerry had done his best multicultural mimicry (“Inshallah!”) since “Jenjis” Khan to convince us that he fathoms the Middle East. Barack Obama, who speaks no foreign languages and confuses the Falklands with the Maldives, let loose his pseudo-authentic Tay-hrran to prove that he too has special expertise to decipher the Iranians — in the tired fashion of his faux-erudite Pock-kee-stahn, Chee-leh, and Ta-lih-ban. So why worry about Ee-rahn when it is a legitimate regional power naturally flexing its muscles a bit in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen?
The thought police have been busily at work. The Iranians will no doubt fear crossing Obama in the same way that Putin feared destroying reset, that Assad feared crossing the Obama red line on WMD use, and that the ISIS jayvees feared Obama. The only alternative to the Iran deal is supposedly a war ginned up by the neoconservatives — never tougher sanctions, embargoes, or blockades. Iran, unlike other nations in the Middle East, is supposedly a great and powerful country that deserves singular respect. The greater fear is that Republican extremists in the Senate could derail the sober and judicious diplomacy of foreign-policy pros like John Kerry.
Why fight them? Close your eyes like Winston Smith and accept that you kept your doctor, that your premiums and deductibles went down $2,500 a year as your coverage expanded, and that the health-care savings reduced the deficit. When you wake up in your pod with a snatched body, Bibi Netanyahu is a coward and chickens–t, and Hassan Rouhani a new American ally.
Our Founding Fathers Were Right
i agree 100% with this and the farther we get away from these basics the harder we will fall!
Analysis of Objectives of Common Core
The following is a critique on the principles embodied in the Common Core national education standards currently being implemented in the United States. There are fundamental problems with the stated goals so one can only assume there is more going on here than we are being told. I think the parents of our current school children feel this “issue” and that is why there is so much opposition developing to the program.
The following is generally accepted as true:
.1% of the population has an IQ of 55 or less
2.1% of the population has an IQ of between 55 and 70
13.6% of the population has an IQ of between 70 and 85
34.1% of the population has an IQ of between 85 and 100
34.1% of the population has an IQ of between 100 and 115
13.6% of the population has an IQ of between 115 and 130
2.1% of the population has an IQ of between 130 and 145
.1% of the population has an IQ of over 145
To get into college and presumed graduate it was understood in the 50’ and 60’s that you would need a minimum IQ of 115; preferably over 120. Based on the accepted IQ distribution that would indicate that only 15.8% of the population could be college ready and of that group probably less than half would graduate for various reasons. The following short paragraphs contain statistics and numbers to show a problem, the actual numbers and percentages will be slightly different than those presented here but the principles presented will hold.
The corollary of that would be that 68.2% of the population would have to find work that would not require college but could be high school graduates. An additional 13.6% could find work but would not graduate from high school. The rest 2.2% would be dependent on others for there well being.
The stated goal of Common Core is to make every high school graduate college ready and the corollary would be, all who would go to college would graduate, otherwise why would anyone go to college. The problem with Common Core is there are only two ways to even come close to achieving the stated gold of all high school graduates being college ready.
The first is that 84.0% of the population could not graduate from high school.
The other way is that the minimum IQ to enter college would have to be lowered to say 100 which would mean that 50% of the population could go to college but only say 8% of the population would graduate. The corollary of that would be that 50.0% of the population would not graduate from high school.
Other combinations are, of course, possible but only 8 to 10% of the population can actually graduate from college unless we lower the standards to graduate from college from what they were in the 50’s and the 60’s
I wrote my undergrad thesis in economics on this very subject in 1965 and I did get an A on it so my professor did not disagree with the conclusions; although I must say that the thesis was written as a academic paper and approached from a slightly different angle, that being that as a technology based society developed jobs would have to be found for those that would not have the mental ability to work in technical fields.
The Irrationality of Democracy: Machiavelli’s Copernican Revolution
By Paul Eidelberg
An organic principle of democracy is equality. This principle entails the political principle of “one-adult-one-vote.” The political principle of one-adult-one vote is irrational and immoral, since it mandates equal votes to intelligent and idiotic citizens, as well as to patriotic and unpatriotic citizens.
The irrationality of democracy was well understood by Plato, as may be seen in Book VIII of his greatest dialogue, The Republic.
The Greek and Roman, as well as the medieval, philosophers scorned democracy as a bad or unjust form of government.
Democracy did not obtain a good reputation from philosophers until Machiavelli, the father of modern political science. Machiavelli initiated a Copernican revolution in his masterpiece, The Prince, the most influential text in the political science departments of the democratic world, including Israel.
Machiavelli’s Copernican revolution is profoundly elucidated by Professor Leo Strauss, and is outlined in my book A Jewish Philosophy of History.
Comment by Centinel2012. When one studies the US Constitution one finds that the founders realized this and did not create a Democracy but a Republic with limited vote not universal vote. Democracies to not last long for the reasons Paul talks about in the first paragraph. By limiting the vote to land owners initially the founders tried to prevent the destruction of what they created. Since land ownership was not an impediment to the average person the ability to vote was larger in America then elsewhere but still not to the point the politicians could manipulate the vote. That came much later mostly after 1913 the 17th amendment however the 19th amendment is an exception although an amendment was not technically needed to achieve the result.

